Rose McGowan, John Cusack bash killing of Iran's Soleimani, slam Trump

Rose is a bit off balance.

I can actually understand people who are against the move. Of course when you spend 3 years being ANTI-everything the president does, any discourse losses its effect because I see them just spouting the same old same old. I do laugh at the argument that we want to be their friends, or that it will encourage them to take action against the USA. Wake up...the Iranians hate us and do not need anything to incite them against us. This guy is responsible for the death and many Americans and nonAmericans. Maybe the tact of showing we are not going to tolerate it anymore will be more effective then sending plane loads of cash.

Wonder where these voices were when Obama was the drone king of Iraq? To me that is what is separating the true liberal voices from those who have TDS. Few voices on the left spoke a word about it, but some did.
I can respect those who are consistent regardless of who is in office...the others, meh...no respect whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

Wonder where these voices were when Obama was the drone king of Iraq? To me that is what is separating the true liberal voices from those who have TDS. Few voices on the left spoke a word about it, but some did.
I can respect those who are consistent regardless of who is in office...the others, meh...no respect whatsoever.

---

Nailed it.

Outraged about separating "families" at the border? Were you outraged when Obama put the policy in place?

If you were outraged When Obama did it fine, if not it's just hypocrisy and politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_bgblue

Rose is a bit off balance.

---

"Dear #Iran, The USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize. We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us. #Soleimani," she wrote.

Yep, she's lost her mind. She apparently got ripped even by many of her fans.

It's Jane Fonda on the anti-aircraft gun, twitter version.

She has friends in the idiot bin

Kapernick

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/solei...k-brown-people

Kaepernick goes WAY further than McGowan, actually puts on a VC uniform and marches around shouting Death to America, twitter version.

When Obama ordered all those drone strikes and deportations, was he inflicting American imperialism on Brown and Black people too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_bgblue

She has friends in the idiot bin

Kapernick

---

lol, beat me to it by like a minute.

IMO he's just not even American at this point. Seriously, you could take his quotes and put them in a newsfeed from Iran or North Korea and other than the better English you wouldn't know the difference.

I'll never wear anything made by Nike as long as he's on their payroll. I used to have a ton of UK gear, now I have almost none, and won't until they switch companies.

Kapernik is so far out there. Agree on the Nike stuff. I am not buying anything new. I am not throwing it out. But no new purchases.

Rose McGowan is embarrassing me. I am sure the left who I stand with on most things regarding Trump, would assail me on many issues.

Ideally I would like declarations of war. Iran's surrogates and Iran itself has looked to exert its influence in the Middle East for a long time. With the end of Saddam Hussein's regime, the US opened the door for greater Iranian hegemony in the region.

The inaction taken by the US against several Iranian provocations the past 12 months may have been misconstrued as weakness.

Now that we have taken strong action against a foe, it may be viewed as an overreaction.

After the almost taking of our embassy in Iraq, I am more open to such a move by our part.

I don't think the nuclear treaty with Iran was the right course of action under Obama. But once we signed that treaty, we should have honored it until we saw Iran was not.

Maybe they were not adhering to it.

But we have long been at war with Iran and that conflict is heating up. We have killed their scientists. We have blown up and hacked their computer systems. Now we are killing very prominent public figures.

The drone strikes that the US has engaged in is a cost effective and safe (for our personnel) means to conduct modern warfare. It can be seen as cowardly. It also has the unintended result of being willing to bloody the nose of a foe and become more timid ourselves.

Knowing that our blood will be limited in its shedding, America may be more willing to fight than talk.

You absolutely want to protect US troops. But when we can reign down destruction others while knowing our people are "relatively" out of harm's way, it does impact how cavalierly we wage war and become timid in getting bloody at the same time.

It is a dangerous recipe. God bless our troops and may God grant Trump and our leaders the wisdom to make the right decisions.

Well, they're not wrong.

Quote:

---

I don't think the nuclear treaty with Iran was the right course of action under Obama. But once we signed that treaty, we should have honored it until we saw Iran was not.

---

The proof was there and the inspectors saw it, they were just unwilling to make a case for it.

Already paying dividends with unintended consequences

Stampede during Soleimani’s funeral procession kills at least 32, state TV reports

https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-s...erman-mourners

32 dead Iranians is what we call a good start

Quote:

---

I don't think the nuclear treaty with Iran was the right course of action under Obama. But once we signed that treaty, we should have honored it until we saw Iran was not.

---

Presidents often reneg on policies of the prior President. An argument could be made that many voted for Trump because of actions like the Iranian giveaway. While it was being negotiated many disagreed with it. And the bottom line is it just kicked the can down the road for later presidents to deal with a nuclear Iran, while they continued to fund and promote terrorism in the region and around the world. Pbama nixed many of Bush's policies, just as Bush did with many of Clinton's. Those are the consequences of lawful elections. Maybe if the deal had been a good one it would not have been dumped. Iran made out to the tune of $150,000,000,000 in cash to support terrorist (sure, that cash wasn't used for terrorism...wink wink).

The fear is now Iran will retalliate. Maybe they will attack an embassy, or shoot down a drone...or maybe attack some oil tankers in the gulf. Truth be told, Iran was already at war with the USA, its just we were not at war with them. For years we have spoken softly, for so long that our big stick was nothing more than a cane. They need to see the consequences of their actions and those need to be sufficient to discourage future actions.

And on the positive side.....this seems to be an exit strategy from Iraq, which is a great thing! Trump has wanted out if Iraq and now that looks like it will happen.

Doc, on foreign policy US presidents generally do not make quick moves that directly contradict the previous administration.

Regardless of rhetoric or intent, a slow methodical shift in policy allows allies and enemies alike to adjust to new realities.

It might be a characteristic that really connects Trump supporters with their leader, but it is the kind of half cocked, failure to consider the consequences that leads us into a war Arch Duke Prince Ferdinand style.

Having US troops "deported" from Iraq and not on US policy timetables not only hurts our long term interests but creates a perception of weakness and abdication from America's role in the world. That will come back to bite the United States if we are not careful.

Although a tongue in cheek, funny comment to note that Iranians were killed during the funeral of their general has already had positive effects, it is actually the opposite. What we are seeing is a strengthening of Iranian nationalism forcing the people, even those who embrace some elements of democratic reform, into the arms of the mullahs and the militants.

The departed general is now a martyr. Taking him out may have been the right call. But most of us will never know.

And it is a little ironic that now Trump views the intel community above reproach in the info they are sharing.

Threatening cultural sites as Hitler did with his order to destroy Paris on the way out is not a good luck for the US.

England and Boris are not backing us. And Israel, the country that loves to flex its muscles is also informing the world that the US drone strike did not have their seal of support or knowledge beforehand.

First, Presidents reverse course pretty quickly often, but in this case what exactly was quick about it? Trump didn't remove us from the Iran deal until 2018, More than a year after he took office and after it was well established Iran was cheating (as if anyone with any sense whatsoever thought they would adhere to the deal).

What's sudden and disruptive there? He ran on it being a bad deal, made a campaign promise to end it, got voted in in part b/c of it, and over 2 years he examined it and then ended it.

Would 3 years have been too soon? Wait till his 2nd term? No, this was not some proto-typical Trumpian knee jerk in this case. It was always a bad deal, one Europe agreed to b/c of their ability to get Iranian oil and sell them goods, and one that the US never should have supported as it ended the economic pressure on a very dangerous nation and allowed them massive investment in their military and in these proxy wars throughout the Middle East.


As for galvanizing IRan, that's just not the case. The Iranian regime is deeply unpopular with younger Iranians, and while no doubt you will get big turnouts for this kind of thing, the truth is the proxy wars Iran started have hurt their economy and was a big part of the protests we've seen, and those were all part of the general's doing. He wasn't as popular as Iranian state media and US leftist media would have us believe.

Look at the writing of Thomas Friedman at the NYT. He has a very contrary but deeply insightful take on this, that Iran was being plunged into these wars in large part by the general, and even concludes they may name a street in Tehran after Trump one day, lol.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/o...soleimani.html (may be pay blocked)

I"m sure the regime will get some mileage out of it, but honestly we had to respond to trying to overrun our embassy, and this seems like a very legitimate target given he leads the forces involved. We couldn't let that act go without response.



Now, as for threats on cultural sites, I agree. I hope that's just typical Trump over the top bluster. I fear it's coming from his advisors, many of whom are hawks who have been stewing for a war with Iran for years, and they know such a move would all but guarantee one. That I find concerning, but hopefully it's just Trump being Trump and if targets really are hit they will be military and political targets.

So far he has held true to his promise to only respond with the force that is necessary to pay back the aggressor's actions. I do not see him gravity bombing historic mosques nor sending cruise missiles into downtown Tehran unless the bearded wonders detonate bombs in a major US city. If that happens then the citizens of Tehran have about 2 days to pack up and get out of Dodge ASAP.

BTW did ya'll see the latest comments from AOC and Omar after the strike to take out Soleimani.

I am going to start referring to him as Salami

Easier to type, that's for sure.

So far Trump has been very restrained, and is trying as a general direction to get us out of the Middle East. Part of his turnover with various advisors is he's getting conservative hawks in there and he is more isolationist.

I doubt, based on his prior decisions like not retaliating for the Saudi missile attack, that he would go after such targets, and this is all bluster.

Of course he's wrong no matter what he does.He pulls troops back and he's wrong, he takes a bold step and that's wrong too.

The Middle East is like War Games. The only winning move is not to play. I'm coming around to packing up altogether and leaving. We don't seem to be able to stop nuclearization there, and that's really the biggest downside of just leaving the entire sphere of influence to Russia, China, et al.

BTTT since what I posted above is now being seen in protests among Iranian students.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...inian-airplane

As it turns out the Revolutionary Guard is about as popular in Iran as the secret police and repressive militaries are in any country. Signs calling Solemeni (sp) a murderer, etc.

Iran, prior to the revolution, was always a more western nation than most of the region, with large diaspora in the US and west. They're also a relatively young population, and many there are done with the repression of the Islamist regime. Not every muslim in Iran buys into the terrorism and repression, in fact I'm betting the vast majority don't.

Trump's move didn't galvanize Iran, it's further driving the wedge between the most extreme religious conservatives there and groups like the students who want change.

Initial statements about the galvanizing seem inaccurate and one my concerns seems to be unfounded. Which mean I seem to be wrong--at least in the short term and hopefully altogether.

Iran shooting down the Ukranian plane (talk about irony) has stirred up opposition to the Iranian regime from within. That is a positive.

The rocket attack last night is not. We will see how things continue.

I think for a variety of reasons, the US response is working out. Trump is always wrong to some (blush) but the decision may have been the most prudent course of action. It certainly had Iran make a statement while leaving an avenue for diplomacy.

Communicating with Congress, however poor the relationship, is important for a Republic and not a dictatorship.

Iran is so poorly portrayed in the US media it's hard to get a handle on them. The protests we see now are nothing new. The regime has its supporters of course, but it has a lot of detractors. Most realize they traded a repressive Shah for just another repressive regime.

Many if not most in Iran hate their government. Iran, even under the Shah, was much more westernized, and just like here many young people aren't buying into religion and esp.the kind of strictness in Iran.

This was an excuse for them to protest the regime they've protested before, and one they don't want. As one reporter said, Solemani wasn't popular with many in Iran. They're grateful he's dead.

Trump had to respond to the storming of the embassy. That's a must.This seems to be honestly a pretty fair response, and with Iran not being able to hit anything with their missiles, and then shooting down a civilian plane, this has gone very badly for them.